Literature DB >> 25548997

A national review of the frequency of minimally invasive surgery among general surgery residents: assessment of ACGME case logs during 2 decades of general surgery resident training.

Morgan K Richards1, Jarod P McAteer1, F Thurston Drake1, Adam B Goldin2, Saurabh Khandelwal1, Kenneth W Gow2.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has created a shift in how many surgical diseases are treated. Examining the effect on resident operative experience provides valuable insight into trends that may be useful for restructuring the requirements of resident training.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in general surgery resident operative experience regarding MIS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of the frequency of MIS relative to open operations among general surgery residents using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs for academic years 1993-1994 through 2011-2012. EXPOSURES: General surgery residency training among accredited programs in the United States. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We analyzed the difference in the mean number of MIS techniques and corresponding open procedures across training periods using 2-tailed t tests with statistical significance set at P < .05.
RESULTS: Of 6,467,708 operations with the option of MIS, 2,393,030 (37.0%) were performed with the MIS approach. Of all MIS operations performed, the 5 most common were cholecystectomy (48.5%), appendectomy (16.2%), groin hernia repair (10.0%), abdominal exploration (nontrauma) (4.4%), and antireflux procedures (3.6%). During the study period, there was a transition from a predominantly open to MIS approach for appendectomy, antireflux procedures, thoracic wedge resection, and partial gastric resection. Cholecystectomy is the only procedure for which MIS was more common than the open technique throughout the study period (P < .001). The open approach is more common for all other procedures, including splenectomy (0.7% MIS), common bile duct exploration (24.9% MIS), gastrostomy (25.9% MIS), abdominal exploration (33.1% MIS), hernia (20.3% MIS), lung resection (22.3% MIS), partial or total colectomy (39.1%), enterolysis (19.0% MIS), ileostomy (9.0% MIS), enterectomy (5.2% MIS), vagotomy (1.8% MIS), and pediatric antireflux procedures (35.9% MIS); P < .001. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Minimally invasive surgery has an increasingly prominent role in contemporary surgical therapy for many common diseases. The open approach, however, still predominates in all but 5 procedures. Residents today must become efficient at performing multiple techniques for a single procedure, which demands a broader skill set than in the past.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25548997     DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.1791

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  16 in total

Review 1.  [Minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgery: surgery 4.0?].

Authors:  H Feußner; D Wilhelm
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  Fluorescent incisionless cholangiography as a teaching tool for identification of Calot's triangle.

Authors:  Mayank Roy; Fernando Dip; David Nguyen; Conrad H Simpfendorfer; Emanuele Lo Menzo; Samuel Szomstein; Raul J Rosenthal
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  A novel method of 'hands-free' laparoscopic retraction.

Authors:  C Khoo; S Markar; D Nott
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  Comparison of Appendectomy Outcomes Between Senior General Surgeons and General Surgery Residents.

Authors:  Baha Siam; Abbas Al-Kurd; Natalia Simanovsky; Haitham Awesat; Yahav Cohn; Brigitte Helou; Ahmed Eid; Haggi Mazeh
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 14.766

5.  Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Minimally Invasive Surgery Training Improves Outcomes in Basic Laparoscopic Procedures.

Authors:  Katherine D Gray; Joshua G Burshtein; Lama Obeid; Maureen D Moore; Gregory Dakin; Alfons Pomp; Cheguevara Afaneh
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Perception versus reality: elucidating motivation and expectations of current fellowship council minimally invasive surgery fellows.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Watkins; Aurora D Pryor; Michael S Truitt; D Rohan Jeyarajah
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Declining Operative Experience for Junior-Level Residents: Is This an Unintended Consequence of Minimally Invasive Surgery?

Authors:  Matthew G Mullen; Elise P Salerno; Alex D Michaels; Traci L Hedrick; Min-Woong Sohn; Philip W Smith; Bruce D Schirmer; Charles M Friel
Journal:  J Surg Educ       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 2.891

8.  Non-elective paraesophageal hernia repair: surgical approaches and short-term outcomes.

Authors:  William Sherrill; Isolina Rossi; Michael Genz; Brent D Matthews; Caroline E Reinke
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Use of minimally invasive surgery in emergency general surgery procedures.

Authors:  Michael Arnold; Sharbel Elhage; Lynnette Schiffern; B Lauren Paton; Samuel W Ross; Brent D Matthews; Caroline E Reinke
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-08-06       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Impact of fellow compared to resident assistance on outcomes of minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Sherif Aly; Susanna W L de Geus; Cullen O Carter; Teviah E Sachs; Donald T Hess; Jennifer F Tseng; Luise I M Pernar
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.